Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Defends Peter Thiel's Trump Ties In Internal Memo (theverge.com)
Soon after it was announced that Project Include, a community for building meaningful, enduring diversity and inclusion into tech companies, would no longer work with Y Combinator startups, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Thiel's status as a Facebook board member in a message to employees. "We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate," Zuckerberg wrote. "There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault." The Verge reports: A screenshot of the memo was posted to Hacker News yesterday, and it later surfaced on Boing Boing. A Facebook spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the five-paragraph memo to The Verge. It appears to have been posted on Facebook for Work, the enterprise version of Facebook that the company recently made available to other companies. Thiel's endorsement of Trump has put those CEOs in a difficult position. On one hand he is a close adviser; on the other, his support for an erratic, racist demagogue has outraged many of their employees and partners. Like Y Combinator's Sam Altman before him, Zuckerberg defended the company's ties to Thiel by saying that the company has a moral obligation to consider a variety of viewpoints, no matter how abhorrent. "We care deeply about diversity," Zuckerberg wrote. "That's easy to do when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It's a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That's even more important." Of course, as the designer Jason Putorti wrote on Medium this week, Thiel already has an outsized capacity to stand up for ideas he agrees with: he spent $1.25 million to promote them. Zuckerberg's memo reads as if he is defending Thiel's right to post on Facebook. In fact, the question is whether someone who promotes opposition to gender and racial equality should be allowed to serve as a steward for a company whose stated mission is to connect the world.
This SJW stuff is a minefield for companies that are trying to actually accomplish stuff. I suggest staying away and not answering their calls.
Those who have forgotten the origin story of Facebook had also forgotten that you are a self-centered prick with no morals. Thanks for hitting refresh on that turd icon.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You might also consider it the support of the lesser or the two evils being presented to us this time around.
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Apologize while bashing the hell out of the Political Candidate you dislike. The propaganda is so thick you can taste it.
So can Facebook say "Thanks" to Mark followed by "On behalf of the Corrupt politician, corrupt political party, and corrupt media trying to install her we give our thanks!"
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Translation:
"We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate," Zuckerberg wrote. "There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
"We can't create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate," Zuckerberg wrote. "There are many reasons a person might support Trump, but those that do are racist, sexist, xenophobic, and accept sexual assault."
After her speech, I have to wonder how she would react if her husband was caught getting a blowjob in the Oval Office from a girl about the age of Michelle's daughter. She seems to think it's okay for Hillary to ignore it.
So, support for a corrupt, lying manipulator shouldn't be cause for outrage? Because that's the only realistic alternative in this election. We have two horrible candidates running. If you don't see that and hurl epithets at people who make a different choice from you, the problem is with you.
This has nothing to do with "free speech" this is about a private business relationship. Trump apologists forget that when it hurts him.
"One-issue voting" works in the other direction too: "Okay, she's a lying crook, has absolutely no commonality with me in terms of fiscal policy, has a foreign policy which I find to be fundamentally broken, and will promote policies which I believe will increase world-wide terrorism -- but she hasn't been accused of racism, sexism or homophobia, which is the important thing!"
Not that I'm going to vote for either Tweedledee or Tweedledum (I'll let you sort out which is which), but I think it's disingenuous to claim that others are morally bankrupt because they don't share the exact same weighting on how they prioritize issues.
When Brendan Eich was ousted from Mozilla, it was for his private backing of California Proposition 8, which won the backing of over 52% of California voters. By the hateful logic of Mr. Eich's detractors, the entire State of California should've been boycotted by the freedom-loving web-sites until the State purged their thought-criminals.
Where Mr. Zuckerberg stood on that boycott is unclear, but the words he is preaching now, should've been uttered then.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They love diversity so much they'd buddy up to Pol Pot, if he was still alive.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Trump was labeled anti-Hispanic because he wants to close the border with Mexico and correct the illegal immigration issue (uh oh, I used the bad phrase). He discussed the issues of bringing in even more immigrants and refugees from the Middle East which got him labeled Islamophobic and xenophobic. He talked about Obama's birth certificate which somehow landed him as a racist but ignores the Hillary camp who ran the same story before Trump. Hillary still hangs out with Bloomenthal so he has to be an open racist.
The woman thing is a bit more complex because Trump has high beauty standards, says so, and was a Celebrity in a position where lots of offers came his way, and had an interesting audio leak(1). Sorry kids, but some women know that sex appeal is a way of getting ahead in the world and are not afraid to use it. I think that makes him a bit shallow, but not different than most men who have beauty standards too. They just happen to be less vocal about it and lack the soap box.
(1) Audio starts with him telling Bush that he tried hard to get with someone and was turned down. That is not sexual assault, that's called dating. We know that this happened in the past because he says "now she has those fake boobs and such". Middle of the audio is talking about a particular type of woman, so stop the crap generalizations. If you have not at least heard people talk about legs, butts, boobs, bulges, etc.. and you are past puberty you are 100% hearing impaired. I'll bet that you actually talked about those things more than once when you thought you were in close company. The end of the audio and video, Trump comes out and is a complete gentlemen. Bush tells HER to give HIM a hug, and within 2 seconds Trump volunteered to her that he was spoken for. That is not a sexual predator.
The whole narrative at this point is contrived and abused to point of being senseless. I got bored listening to speeches and reading transcripts to disprove the media narrative so now I get maybe 1 in 3. The media keeps rehashing the few "Gotcha" lines they caught weeks and months ago as if that was all Trump said. It's crap, not journalism.
Posting anonymously because the Leftist's aversion to people reading the truth will get this moderated to hell in short order. Stefan Molyneux has a great series called the Truth about Trump which breaks down all of these facts and more regarding the narrative of the left to install a candidate.
Go learn what a fascist is, I'll wait.
There are definitely wedge issue voters. But I'd be hesitant to claim that they're even the majority of Trump supporters. From statistics I've seen, the biggest demographic is white males with lower levels of education and fall in pretty bad economic situations.
There was an interview with a guy who feared Hillary to death because he's convinced she will raise his taxes and cut his disability checks. I don't think he ever connected that disability checks comes from taxes nor that if you're on disability, you're probably not making enough for progressive taxation to affect you negatively.
Nice backhanded compliment: "There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
The age-old question: if you claim to be inclusive, do you have to include people who exclude others?
Similar to "what happens to 'alternative' when it becomes mainstream?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Clinton has a list of rape accusers longer than Cosby's.
The scandal you are alluding to there also includes Clinton.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The moron wants to impose a no fly zone in a country that the Russians have already entrenched themselves into. That's like a quick trip to World War III.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's not what's being implied, but you had to made this a partisan thing as well. People who vote on single-issues are pretty looney in general. That's all that was said. But again, you had to come in, Anonymously (cowardly), with the tried-and-true predictable partisan talking point "well the other side!!!".
That being said, some issues are more worthy of being a wedge issue than others. I don't care how good a political candidate's policies are towards economic growth if they advocated, say, genocide.
Another very valid reason, for instance, is a having a secret desire for the end of civilization as we know it. Another one is a healthy curiosity to find out how quickly a well developed economy can be destroyed by a demagogue. We already have good examples in less developed nations such as Venezuela under the late Hugo Chávez and Cuba under the barely breathing Fidel Castro. And as we speak, we can see the Philippines flirting with disaster under the direction of President Duterte. All very good and entertaining reasons to support Mr. Trump, especially is you have any type of sociopathic tendencies.
> Of course we can create a culture that excludes people based on their support of a political candidate.
The founding fathers are all rolling in their graves right now.
This bullshit is pure Hilter and pure Stalin. Trump has nothing on you people.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Michael Jordan once said, "Republicans buy shoes too." He has political views, but didn't want his brand associated with only 50% of shoppers. Some companies want to be part of culture wars. Chick-fil-a doesnt believe in equal rights for gays, Target makes a big deal about letting transgender people pee. That's part of their image and identity that they want their brand to be. Shoppers can make their own choices.
FB seems to be going a third way, and supporting both candidates, which in turn pisses off both sides. So the angry people can then... post rants on Facebook which generates hits and more traffic from political discussions, and more ad revenue. Ah, clever...
It is clear that the SJWs only believe in one kind of Diversity...of Race
They are not interested in Diversity of Opinion
They are not interested in Diversity of Thought
They are not interested in the Diversity of Goals
If you think differently than them, have different opinions, or don't share their SJW goals, you are Other and are to be despised.
Don't bother arguing otherwise.
Radio host Marshall Gilbert was fired for voting for Prop 8
A coffee shop, El Coyote, became a target of protest after the manager’s name was put on a blacklist for giving $100 to support Proposition 8. Mobs of protesters harassed El Coyote’s customers, shouting “shame on you,” until police in riot gear settled the crowd.
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich
Google for more.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's a straw man argument anyway. Trump support is just reason why people dislike Theil.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh, you mean the people who've paid the biggest price for open borders policies are the most motivated to do something about it? Do tell.
John McCain already came clean. They intend to oppose any nominee [npr.org] that Clinton makes.
That makes no sense. What are they going to do, wait another eight years to appoint another justice?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm sorry, but I'm thinking you may be the one who doesn't understand "free speech".
Let me explain, had they said they had the legal obligation to consider a variety of viewpoints, then you'd have a point. But they didn't. They said they had a moral obligation. They are free to choose their own morals. Apparently the morals they have chosen means they have to consider the variety of viewpoints. They can choose to change those morals, but apparently they're choosing not to. Now, you're free to say they chose their morals incorrectly, but in many cases that just makes you an asshole.
In my opinion, Trump is a loudmouth not unlike Howard Stern, and definitely should not be president. When it comes to RACIST remarks, these are some of the comments I've come across:
Calling employees "n*gger" (Hillary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Calling people "f*cking Jew bastard" (Hillary, confirmed by three witnesses)
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Hillary said publicly that her mentor is Robert Byrd, former KKK leader.
That idiot trump *has* talked about building a wall; Hillary actually voted to do so.
What bothers me much, much more, though, is the condescension of Hillary and friends towards my family. It *really* bothers me that they tell my daughter, in effect, "we'll give you an extra ten points on this test since you're black, and obviously black people like you are too stupid to actually learn the material like we white people can do". The hidden, implied racism and bigotry that runs deep in all of their policies is infuriating to me. When my daughter hears Hillary call someone a "n*gger" or a "f*cking Jew bastard", I explain to my daughter that Hillary is wrong, very wrong. Some people are stupid and say stupid things; that's simple enough to understand and accept. But when the entire school system, through college, is predicated on the assumption that my daughters complexion makes her less capable, it's harder to convincingly explain that EVERYONE setting school policy are ALL morons. I'm sure she will at times wonder if they are right; and that saddens and angers me tremendously.
Well, if Clinton put forth a replacement for Scalia like Scalia....a strict constitutionalist and not a legislator from the bench, they'd pass him.
But I"m guessing hell isn't getting that cold any time soon....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
On a separate but related note, although the liberals' implied, assumed racism in most of their policies is the most infuriating to me, there's another kind that also bugs me greatly, one that is easy to quantify objectively and see the difference.
In my opinion, the constant focus on race and gender is stupid and highly counter-productive. I think we should be talking about the QUALIFICATIONS of Supreme Court nominees, not going on and on about where their great-great-grandfather was born, nor the contents of their underwear. I raise my daughter to see individual people for who they are, not to start by categorizing them as black, latino, white, male and female. 99% of the time, those categories are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. So I think we should cut back about 99% on how much time we spend categorizing people like that; don't teach the next generation to be always looking at race and gender, all the time. On that note:
About 18 months ago I grabbed a random sampling of 8 Democrat speeches and about 8 Republican speeches. Democrats brought up race 26 times more often than Republicans.
"There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia, or accepting sexual assault."
That may be, but those are my personal favorites!!!
You mean the people who've done the least to adapt to the world developing? They can't hide their heads in the sand. Education and training is the only answer.
Sure, sure. We can all get PhDs and the toilets will clean themselves.
For once, think a little.
Adapting to the reality of comparative advantage doesn't mean PhD, it means develop a skill (training) that is needed. That is your responsibility as a worker. Nobody gets paid for a job they don't actually work except senate Republicans.
So you'd like to live in a world where people with degrees and marketable skills make a lot of money and everyone else makes barely enough to survive? Because fuck 'em?
That's called capitalism. Move to Libya... well never mind, Cuba... well never mind, China... well never mind, or Russia if you don't like it.
That's the correct call, sir. Neither of the candidates has been found guilty of a crime.
It's like the last two minutes of a basketball game: I say, "let 'em play".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Many are likely voting one way or the other on the potential for the Supreme Court balance alone. That's actually my main issue now, along with gun rights.
As a Non-American I find this fixation with guns absurd. I've lived in a a few different countries all with much tighter gun control than the US, yet the normal citizen can still get a gun if they want one. What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you? Do you honestly believe this would ever happen?
>> He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.
Will you stop spreading this tired bit of propaganda? He merely wants to stop the flow of people from Muslim countries _with may of which we're de-facto at war_, and then only until appropriate vetting procedures are established. This never was about a blanket "Muslim" ban.
Can you guys and galls get it through your thick skulls that letting in military-age men of an uncertain background from the countries where radical Islam is a dominant ideology is an absolutely idiotic thing to do? What's so bad about figuring out how to make sure you're not letting in an ISIS or Al Quaeda operative?
Then vote for someone other than Trump. That is, after all, what elections are about.
Hating on everyone else because they didn't vote the same as you, just makes YOU the asshole.
-- sigs cause cancer.
Can someone please clarify which Clinton is accused of rape?
The
No, that isn't capitalism at all. That's some kind of goofy internationalism. There's nothing about capitalism that says we need to have open borders.
Capitalism and spatial comparative advantage locate production at the sites best suited by logistics and available skilled labor. Read up.
Or there's opposition to the massive clusterfuck known as the TPP. Hillary helped create that shitfest, AND has referred to it as the gold standard of trade agreements. Her supposed opposition to it now is a blatant lie. While Trump doesn't necessarily oppose it for the same reasons I do, he does at least oppose it, and not in the flip-flopping wishy-washy way Hillary does.
Of course we can create a culture that excludes people based on their support of a political candidate.
Why stop there? Put them into camps and start gassing them already. This should quickly correct all these wrong-thinking people and would allow inclusive, tolerant, and democratic society to finally flourish.
Do you know what any of those fifty cent words mean? Yes, companies build factories where the labor supply is available. But letting people from other countries come into the country illegally is not part of capitalism, unless you're talking about the "crony" variety. I understand why companies want the government to ignore duly constituted laws regarding immigration, but I don't understand why anybody cares what they want.
It may be hard for Democrats to understand, but this business of having corporate donors pay you a million dollars for a speech so you take care of them once you're in office? That's not the way it's supposed to work.
I totally value the political opinions of educated people with a Ph.D. in Gender Studies working at Starbucks over those uneducated rube plumbers with 12 employees.
Liberals: "We're the champions of the working class."
Working class: "We'd really like it if the government would stop flooding the country with cheap labor, criminals, drugs, and people who hate us while also shitting on our history, culture and religion. We're fucking dying here."
Liberals: "EVIL RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC ISLAMOPHOBIC BIGOT LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER VOTE FOR US WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU!!!!!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
God damn you are stupid. Yes, I know what they all mean and haven't even gotten started. You are the fool defending people who don't react to change. There is no defense for them, they must adapt.
Education and training is the only answer.
Can you turn a man with a 100 IQ into an electrical engineer?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
A man with 100 IQ is a better engineer.
Previously, Facebook did shut down the pages of people on the Right that they didn't agree w/. It's nice to see that Zuckerburg, after his meetings some months ago w/ Conservative groups, is now defending the idea of people on the Right having the right to post their content on FaceBook.
The "change" you're talking about is the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. The point is that change should never have happened.
The same people on slashdot pooh-poohing Trump for wanting to enforce immigration laws would have a seizure if companies were allowed unrestricted use of H-1B visas. I wonder how you would "adapt" to your new job as a Walmart greeter in that eventuality.
And BTW, you of all people, have no business accusing others of stupidity.
Certainly there are reasons, but that's not the point and not why Project Include won't work with Y Combinator. Support of Trump involves considering sexual assault, racism, sexism and xenophobia to be acceptable. That holds regardless of the reasons you have for supporting him. Project Include is saying "No, those things that Trump loudly and proudly stands for are not acceptable, period. We don't care why you think they're acceptable because we don't believe there's any reason you could give us that could make them acceptable.". And this isn't just the candidate's supporters espousing those positions, it's the candidate himself making his enthusiastic support of those positions the centerpiece of his speeches and campaign.
Bill Clinton took 26 confirmed flights on Epstein's Lolita Express. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Yes indeed.
... and not on run down shacks and pickup trucks. I saw them prominently displayed in front of large businesses, busy restaurants, and homes of all sizes and values. In the DC area, I see almost none of the usual liberal sign-posting, except for local races and congressional seats, etc.
... it's complete BS.
I just drove through Michigan - from its touristy border with Canada, down through the rural spaces, through Ann Arbor and around Detroit and off into NY and PA, down through western MD and into the DC burbs. I saw less than 10 "Clinton" signs in front yards, and never one on display at a business. I saw hundreds and hundreds of Trump signs
The Trump support (or Hillary revulsion, as much or more likely) was strikingly strong through a thousand miles of rural, suburban, and city driving. Doesn't mean that visible support for him, or silence for Hillary, will map to meaningful votes or electoral seats - but the notion, as constantly beaten on by the lefty media, that it's all simpleton rednecks supporting Trump because they all want to be Nazis and bring back the good old days of slave owning
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Supporting Trump's election campaign is entirely in line with hedge fund managers' and billionaires' lack of moral compass. Don't forget that Google and Microsoft have enthusiastically supported the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which are responsible for actual laws and policies that are just as abhorrent as Trump's on- and off-screen behaviour. We shouldn't pretend that there are any "ethical billionaires." They'll all murder your grandmother if the price is right.
What whacky scenario do you see playing out where all the guns are taken from you?
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? Or Hillary Clinton's personal favorite back-channel methods: she wants to support punitive taxes on the purchase of ammunition, and make gun manufacturers vulnerable to lawsuits over deaths committed by criminals using their products. In other words, she wants to use executive power to strangle gun makers and owners through regulatory and financial attacks, and get that bit of misery in place while she seats Supreme Court justices that will, as she puts it, "reinterpret the constitution." She's on the record saying that she doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to own guns. If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I definitely won't vote for Bill Clinton, with all those rape accusers.
It's not about Bill. It's about Hillary's long-standing support for Bill's treatment of women. About her mocking of the women he's abused. About her willingness to throw women under the bus when they are inconvenient to her pursuit of political power. Bill and his predatory ways are only relevant because of Hillary's endorsement of that predation and abuse.
If someone is accused of rape, it should make them ineligible to be president, don't you agree?
No, because an accusation - as we've seen in high profile cases many times - can be completely false. But when the accusation is credible, and repeated for decades by women have contemporary witnesses who back up their claims (as Bill's victims or cast-off flings do), and Hillary carefully avoids her own finger-wagging standards long enough to send her hired fixers out to smear those women and destroy them ... there's something to look at, vis-a-vis worthiness to hold office.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Can someone please clarify which Clinton is accused of rape?
Bill Clinton is the sexual predator and rapist. Hillary Clinton is the enormous hypocrite who has spent decades defending his actions and attacking the women he's abused.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's not a complete sentence. I'm assuming your IQ is in the 85 range?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
In theory, it is supposed to work that way.
In practice, it certainly does NOT.
US workers are being actively displaced by them.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I was going to answer, but I see the ScentCone has beat me to most of my valid points, especially about the Oz example.
So, yes, I fear for my existing gun freedoms.
And as that you are a non-American, it shouldn't really matter one way or another to you, should it?
It's nice that you're interested, but you really needn't bless us with your 'superior' and more 'civilized' outlook on weapons where you live. If you don't like to have full freedoms like we have here (guns being one of them) then fine, stay where you are, but don't moralize or try to talk down how we have things here.
None of your business....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're the only one advocating treating a group of people as less than human. Think about that for a bit, at least beyond the initial defensive "nah, I'm (D), I'm not the one idealizing being an evil fascist shitbag."
I see that word salad and all it says to me is "I am an idiot." But go ahead, try one more time to salvage a position you've been remiss in articulating, assuming you have one.
You don't have any idea what "American ideals" are. You also don't get to have your own version of history. In the real world the US has allowed different amounts of legal immigration at different times, and it wasn't until the 90s that we looked the other way as millions of illegals poured over the border. You'll notice, if you pay attention, real wages for workers in the US went up the fastest when immigration was heavily restricted. Also, the idea that everyone who didn't have the advantages you have is somehow a retard is, well, retarded.
Hahahahaha. Seriously, do you live under a rock? You can't have read slashdot for very long without realizing how this works - the postings that never get posted, and the jobs that are wired for cheap foreign labor. But that wasn't my hypothetical, anyway. I'm positing the government either changes the rules such that companies can bring in whoever they want, or (a better corollary) they just ignore the rules and let companies break the law with impunity. You lose your job because you can't compete with an unlimited supply of 22-year-olds who are willing to work around the clock for almost nothing. I'll bet my last dollar you'd be singing a different tune about adaptation.
http://people.com/politics/peo...
You are welcome on my lawn.
McCain has this schtick he does every six years, where he makes a hard right turn (as he understands it, anyway) in the months leading up to the primaries, and then after he's back in office it's all about "reaching across the aisle". None of it fools the people who pay attention, but between that and the powers of the incumbent it seems like enough to get him reelected. I'd bet any amount of money McCain not only votes for Clinton's court nominees, but is among the first to support them.
He's been doing this for ages. Decades, at least.
If you represented his positions honestly that would be a much more difficult argument to make.
Don't forget Clinton's position on Assange: "Can't we just drone this guy"?
He donated $2000. It's not like he gave the ten million or anything.
If you really knew what you were talking about, if you "learn[ed] what a fascist is", you'd realize fascism was fundamentally a leftist movement. They didn't call it National Socialism for shits and giggles.
You mean, like Australia? That sort of thing? .... If she can stuff the court with activists who will follow her lead on that, that's exactly the approach to an Australia-style confiscation of privately owned guns.
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning.
Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
To see that, all you have to do is try to find any dirt on Hillary Clinton in any of their "news" articles. It's up to about HuffPo's level of partisan propaganda there lately.
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
The idea that "just one more law" will take guns out of the hands of true criminals (and not just people who are suddenly criminals only because of that "one more law") is foolish. "Just One More Law" is never intended to impact the true criminal, because "normal people" understand that the true criminal element won't obey that law, either. What other purpose than removing guns from law abiding citizens can ANY law that does nothing but remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens have?
By the way, your claim that automatic weapons have no use other than "killing lots of people" kinda gives away your anti-gun bias. The fact that you do not want to admit to any other use doesn't mean they don't actually have any.
but Trump actually raped an underage girl
Please cite the court verdict that proves this accusation. All I know of is one woman who filed a civil suit using a fake address for something that happened twenty two years ago. There is no evidence to back up that claim, and no lawyer or civil rights group bothering to help her.
Do you have the facts that could effect the outcome of this lawsuit?
I was going to answer, but I see the ScentCone has beat me to most of my valid points, especially about the Oz example.
Invalid points that have been debunked numerous times. Copy pasted here:
Dude I live in Australia so you are wasting your time with this line of reasoning. Guns were not confiscated, the govt offered a buy back scheme which owners could voluntarily sell their guns back to the state if they wanted to. Certain types of guns are restricted (eg automatic weapons which aren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people), but my uncle is a farmer and has a whole cupboard full of rifles. Another uncle is a keen hunter and also has a few. I have a pistol club just around the corner where I can go shoot stuff if I want. The big change since the buy back in 1996 is we've had zero (ZERO!) mass shootings since then. Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
So, yes, I fear for my existing gun freedoms.
Maybe you should make your decision based on reason rather than fear? Especially since the scenario you fear didn't actually happen (see above)
And as that you are a non-American, it shouldn't really matter one way or another to you, should it?
Of course it matters, just like starving kids in Africa matter. Most of us strive for a better world.
It's nice that you're interested, but you really needn't bless us with your 'superior' and more 'civilized' outlook on weapons where you live. If you don't like to have full freedoms like we have here (guns being one of them) then fine, stay where you are, but don't moralize or try to talk down how we have things here.
None of your business....
But full freedom means I can come here and say these things, or do you now suddenly not like "full freedom" anymore? This seems to be an inconsistent position...
The only true corroboration in that article is that the reporter and Trump "chatted in a friendly way" during a meeting between Stoynoff, Donald, and Melania. The "corroborating" witness comments that what struck her most about that meeting was that Melania was carrying a child and wearing high heels. I think "Donald slammed her up against a wall and stuck his tongue down her throat" would have ranked a bit higher than the sartorial attire of Trump's wife had it been observed.
Even Stoynoff claims that she and Trump were alone when the alleged attack happened. At that point it becomes a he-said she-said (or zie-said zie-said, if you will). If allegation is all it takes to prove guilt these days, then we've a plethora of allegations we can consider about both candidates, some of which have a lot more evidence than "she told me that..."
Did you forget to read that Politifact page before linking to it? It says all the same things I said about Merrick Garland. The very page you chose to link to says he's "known as a liberal", which isn't what Republicans want, and says liberals criticized the pick for EXACTLY the reasons I said they did, "Democracy for America expressed disappointment that Obama selected a white man rather than a woman of color".
You might as well have linked to my own post as your "refutation". Except of course Politifact is a more credible source, saying exactly the same things I saidb
You miss something. Stoynoff told them Trump attacked her, at the time Trump attacked her. At very least, it sets to bed the notion that she only made up the story now because of the election. At the time of Trump's sexual assault on Stoynoff, there was no indication that he was going to ever run for president. In fact, at the time, the very notion would have seemed ridiculous.
and...
A young writer doesn't ask to be taken off a cushy gig covering the rich and famous unless there's some problem.
You are welcome on my lawn.
US workers are being actively displaced by them.
OK, but Trump has his own visa mill. So yes, it's true, but neither primary candidate is going to do anything to fix that.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The founding fathers are all rolling in their graves right now.
Too late. They exploded during prohibition and their ashes went critical during McCarthyism.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sure, sure. We can all get PhDs and the toilets will clean themselves.
For once, think a little.
Spoken like one unable to adapt. To adapt you do not require to have a Ph.D. All those idiots that cry foul in steel/coal country, fuck, they could have learned something in the last 15 years or leave their economically depressed areas. Instead they blame the Chinese (who make up their own steel and coal) or Mexican picking strawberries 2000 miles west in California.
Have you seen an unemployed handyman? A poor plumber or electrician? A HVAC technician?
Even during the real estate crash, there was work if you had a trade.
The guy who cleaned my pool was a humble handyman, but man he worked his ass off, working long hours doing residential and commercial pool cleaning. And the job is quite simple actually. But guess what? He makes a shitload of money enough to support his family, help his grandchildren and has spare change to support his Harley Davidson hobbies.
The guy who used to cut my grass ran (still runs) a "Christian" landscaping service (good family guy, very humble.) He is able to support his family doing nothing but cutting grass.
Times are hard, but they aren't the apocalypse. Just because times are hard that does not mean you will not get what you put in. It's not like we are in a 3rd world shantytown with nothing but garbage cans to peruse for valuables or something.
So you'd like to live in a world where people with degrees and marketable skills make a lot of money and everyone else makes barely enough to survive? Because fuck 'em?
That's what you get for always demanding a dog-eat-dog system where any form of social net has been demonized as "communism" or some imbecilic shit like that. All that you see here, that's chickens coming home to roost.
So you'd like to live in a world where people with degrees and marketable skills make a lot of money and everyone else makes barely enough to survive? Because fuck 'em?
That's what you get for always demanding a dog-eat-dog system where any form of social net has been demonized as "communism" or some imbecilic shit like that. All that you see here, that's chickens coming home to roost.
On, and by the way, that was a non-sequitur. Just stop.
You can't debunk any of his points, so you start shouting and calling names. Stay classy, you.
I think sir that it is you that needs to learn what a Fascist is.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
More to the point, Thiel didn't just turn into a bad man this year. He's been a piece of crap a long time now. At what point are they finally willing to cut ties with someone? Does he have to be caught in bed with a dead boy first? (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards)
This statement: "In fact, the question is whether someone who promotes opposition to gender and racial equality should be allowed to serve as a steward for a company whose stated mission is to connect the world."
Complete crap and hyperbole. The person who did this write up "thinks" that Trump promotes those things. That doesn't mean he actually DOES support those things.
Way to go Zuckerberg - I was beginning to think reasonable people didn't exist on the left anymore.
I was being intentionally hyperbolic, thinking people would get that I wasn't specifically referring to Trump with my remarks. Apparently I thought wrong.
I was trying to make the point that some people will vote for a politician if they support one particular thing, no matter how crazy they are about other things.
God damn you are a fucking idiot, fascism is Italian! Try some god damn history rather than skipping words. Fuck you are a god damn retard.
You seem to have a rather strange obsession here. Let me try saying it one more time for you, in all capital letters maybe so you can see it:
REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT ANOTHER LIBERAL JUSTICE.
DUH. NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
"Republicans won't admit it"you say - in the very article you linked to, it quoted the Senate majority leader saying they would wait until after the election, that they weren't going to confirm the kind of justice Obama would appoint.
You seem to have a strange obsession with this idea of yours that senators selected by the voters should abdicate their Constitutional duty to ensure a justice is fit for the job (based on what the majority of voters consider fit), and instead confirm whoever Obama chooses. I don't know where you get that idea. Oddly, it seems you'd also rather them play around and pretend to hold hearings about the guy, knowing they aren't going to confirm him if Trump wins. Why would you *want* them to waste time playing games? The people didn't vote control of the Senate to the Democrats, they voted the Republicans in, in many cases one reason they voted republican was to check Obama's appointments of liberal judges who re-write the Constitution to their preference.
Trump was labeled anti-Hispanic because he wants to close the border with Mexico and correct the illegal immigration issue (uh oh, I used the bad phrase)
Trump was labeled anti-Hispanic because he said that the people coming from Mexico were rapists and murderers, and maybe a few of them were ok. He was also labeled anti-Hispanic because he said that a US citizen of Hispanic descent couldn't possibly be impartial.
He talked about Obama's birth certificate which somehow landed him as a racist but ignores the Hillary camp who ran the same story before Trump
Hillary never ran with that story. Not at all.
The story was created by a former Clinton volunteer who sent a chain email when Obama overtook Hillary in the primaries, and we have no evidence that Hillary ever ran with it or repeated it. Only another of Trump's baseless, factless assertions. You could say that since it came from someone who used to volunteer for Hillary that Clinton is responsible, but that then opens you up to every candidate being responsible for everything that any staffer or any volunteer or worker or supporter ever says, even after they leave the campaign.
I won't even bother with your attempt of trying to paper over clear cases of sexual assault. That's just disgusting, and everyone on the conservative side was right to distance themselves from him.
You miss something. Stoynoff told them Trump attacked her, at the time Trump attacked her.
No, I didn't miss anything. It was't at the time he attacked her, it was after, and all it was was her telling them. They have no independent knowledge of the incident and can therefore not corroborate it. All they can corroborate is that she told them something happened, which isn't a fact that is in question. We know what she is saying. What we don't have any evidence of is the actual attack.
Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right? Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.
Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't. Juanita Broderick came foward twenty years after she claimed Bill Clinton attacked her. If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates, I'm all for that. People have already made up their minds about Bill and Donald, anyway. All this stuff is baked into the cake.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ah, good. You do know there's also no evidence of any "actual attacks" by Bill Clinton, right?
No, I know exactly the opposite.
Lewinsky was consensual, by her own testimony.
Lewinsky wasn't claiming there was an attack upon her, nor is anyone else. Sexual harassment is a non-consensual situation, even if the victim claims she agreed to every second of the activity. Coercion doesn't have to be at the point of a knife. The fact that everyone agrees the acts took place is evidence, which you are denying exists.
Now we're finally getting down to business. Either we believe women or we don't.
Not in the criminal justice system. There it takes evidence. People keep claiming that Trump has committed rape and is a pedophile, without so much as a single day in court. It takes more than a she-said to convict someone.
The hypocrisy is not that anyone is excusing actual attacks for one side but not the other. The hypocrisy is that we were told that the women who came forward regarding Bill Clinton's alleged attacks were "bimbo eruptions" and "that's what you get when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park". (And in the same kind of respect for women we got that it was "putting lipstick on a pig" regarding Sarah Palin.) When it is Trump being accused, the same people are saying "we must listen to every woman".
If you want to take sexual assault off the table for both candidates,
Who said anything about doing that? I think it needs to be proven before it becomes accepted as a fact. And I'm sorry, but one person telling 6 or 600 people that "Trump did this bad thing to me" doesn't make it any more true, and it doesn't mean that there are 6 or 600 people who can corroborate that bad thing. I can tell 6000 people today that you held me up at gunpoint last night; exactly zero of them can corroborate your action or lack thereof. People who think People Magazine is a source of legal advice and knowledge are naive at best.
I can't help it if you're fundamentally ignorant. You've been mal-educated and you don't even know what you don't know.
So where is the evidence of Bill Clinton's sexual assaults? Are you sure it's not the same unsubstantiated claims?
Be a man and give us the actual evidence.
Personally, I tend to believe women who say they've been assaulted. That's why I'm voting for the candidate who did not commit sexual assault.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hope the pay is good and you get your money up-front.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Somebody's going to have to clean the toilets. I'd like these people to get paid reasonably well and have a certain amount of security and opportunity.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You know, I drove through a heavily Republican area on my way to work, and there was a complete absence of Trump signs. Lots of signs for people not running for President, though.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Clinton was for the TPP when she was involved in negotiating it. After a few years with her out of the loop, she takes a look at what it turned out to be and she doesn't like it. Is this supposed to be some sort of inconsistency? Ever work on a project that you thought a great deal of, been taken off, and hated what other people made it into?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Most normal people both left and right support some level of gun control because they know that less guns mean less gun violence.
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
Right so where is the problem?
The idea that "just one more law" will take guns out of the hands of true criminals
I never said it would.
By the way, your claim that automatic weapons have no use other than "killing lots of people" kinda gives away your anti-gun bias.
Not anti-gun, just anti-unecessary-gun-violence. As I already said, my family owns plenty of guns and I have access to them when I want.
The fact that you do not want to admit to any other use doesn't mean they don't actually have any.
Well you could've used this space to give us a reason, but since you didn't I can only assume you couldn't think of anything else either...
We already have some level of gun control in the US.
That's what I said.
I never said it would.
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals? Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
Well you could've used this space to give us a reason,
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged. If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
It isn't the Republicans that used the Federal Government to forced Ecuador to silence a vocal critic of the party's candidate.
It isn't? Are you sure? What proof do you have? The same amount of proof that you had that the Democrats forced Ecuador to take Assange offline? IE, you have no proof at all?
Ecuador's actions are reasonable from a neutrality point of view. It doesn't want to be on Trump's side or on Clinton's side. Assange has been vocal in his desire to see Hillary go down, and Ecuador does not want to get drawn into that. If you have a houseguest who embarrasses you with prank calls, you yank phone access if you don't kick him out.
What is the purpose of more gun control laws, if not to take guns out of the hands of true criminals?
Reduce gun violence rates as demonstrated in every other developed country that better gun regulations AND lower violence rates than the US.
Your goal is to take them out of the hands of everyone?
No so why do you keep saying that? In fact I've even reiterated this a couple of times that this is not the case yet you persist? This is very strange behaviour...
You made the extraordinary claim, the onus is upon you to support it when challenged.
No, you are making the claim that automatic weapons have a purpose other than killing lots of people. I'd like to know what this is?
This is the second chance you've had to put this to bed but it seems you are struggling with it.
If you can't imagine any use other than "killing lots of people", then that's your limitation (either deliberate or not). All I need to do is point to our constitution which tells me that I don't need to provide any reason at all to keep and bear arms.
Right so it boils down to it's in the bible, it can't be argued with. That's your logic?
You can have you bear arms, but I'm not sure the bears will be happy about it.
Faggot read this. Especially the early parts. Then fuck off.
In case you don't like that it reprints from here, and if you question the author see here. This took less than 10 minutes all together. Seriously grow the fuck up and learn to learn!
This is just ahistorical revisionism. Hitler was never opposed to socialism. I realize socialists don't want to face the truth, but you can't lie your way out of associations.
Looking at all the "5, Insightful" comments - did I miss something? Has /. been taken over by 4chan redpillers lately?
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it . (And NO, it's not from Voltaire even thought it highlights his ideology) This is freedom of speech 101. You might desagree with them, but they have a right to express their ideas.
And most people are wrong. Violence has nothing to do with the availability of weapons, and everything to do with the IQ of a population group. The lower the IQ, the less impulse control of the populace.
You will notice that promiscuity, STD rates, and violence are all tightly correlated. When you adjust for food availability, so too is obesity. All involve impulse control.
Tell us about your Aboriginals.
The leadership, yes. Why do you think they've been so opposed to Trump?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I at least partly agree with Mark Zuckerberg to the extent in that nobody should lose their job over their political beliefs -- at least if they don't interfere with the ability to do the job. That caveat gets trickier when the person is in a leadership position.
There is another issue in play here: In my opinion: Believing anything Donald Trump says shows a serious lack of judgement.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Hitler was elected democratically. Do you think the people who put him in power should be applauded? They were just exercising their right to democracy, after all.
OP is not saying that we should ban people from voting. But, if you've demonstrated that you're willing to support a xenophobic demagogue who also happens to be a pathological liar, then you deserve to be ridiculed for it. That's people exercising their free speech to call you out on your poor judgement and apparent disregard for basic human decency. You can use your free speech to try to defend yourself. It's called liberty.
Here's the thing: the Germans that put Hitler in power deserve to be blamed for it, because they wanted promises of grandeur and success and sacrificed their freedom and decency to get it. The people who vote for Trump deserve to be blamed for it, for the exact same reasons. Liberty doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for your actions - it means that you are free to make piss-poor decisions, such as supporting authoritarians like Trump, and it means that you will be treated accordingly.
> You apparently don't realize that Byrd publicly denounced and apologized for his former ties to the KKK and went on to support the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Support (verb): to aid or assist.
Byrd FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights for 60 days. Many years later, after he had completely and utterly lost in his attempts to 'keep the n*ggers in their place", he may have realized it was politically expedient to say he *likes* the Civil Rights Act, but he most certainly did not support it, he did not aid and support in it's passage. To the contrary, he put more effort into blocking the Civil Rights Act than any other act in his entire career.
Violence has nothing to do with the availability of weapons, and everything to do with the IQ of a population group.
The lower the IQ, the less impulse control of the populace.
So let's work with this, just as a thought exercise.
Assuming you are right, does it then make sense to allow low IQ people access to high powered weapons?
I was in York over the weekend, I didn't see any Hillary signs. Don't much care what a single politician thinks though, as he is a single vote.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It is the Senate's job to approve nominees, if none of the nominees get approved, the president can continue offering up options, but the president does not get to unilaterally bypass congress.
The Senate has made it clear that the appointments will wait till after the next president takes office, but how is that in any way different than a no vote in your mind?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It is part of the constitution of our country, right after the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Any person who tries to restrict firearms ownership from the federal government is trying to reinterpret the Bill of Rights. It requires a very special type of grammar not taught in English classes to interpret the sentence above to mean anything can be restricted by the federal government. Many supreme court justices try to interpret the regulated Militia portion to mean that guns should be regulated, but regulated at the time this was written meant trained. So the only regulation that should exist for guns is that people should be trained in their use. Also, some try to argue that the Militia is covered by the US Military, which is a very inaccurate reading, as the Militia is:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
But, even then, the militia is a reason for the right to bear arms, not the only reason for the right to bear arms. There of course are many other reasons, such as hunting, personal defence, target shooting, and probably many others I can't think of.
There is also this major issue that the politicians on the US left keep trying to regulate the arms as if people breaking the law will care about yet another law preventing their ownership of firearms, when frankly, that isn't human nature.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Which moron? That sounds like a position I would expect to hear from any of the top four.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It is part of the constitution of our country, right after the freedoms of speech, religion, and the press.
Great, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. It even says so in the document itself. Or do you only follow the bits you agree with?
There is also this major issue that the politicians on the US left
And right. Don't forget that a lot of the right support some level of regulation too.
keep trying to regulate the arms as if people breaking the law will care about yet another law preventing their ownership of firearms, when frankly, that isn't human nature.
It's not as simple as "make guns illegal = no more murder". But there is plenty of evidence that shows a reduction in guns and gun culture results in a reduction of gun violence.
If people want to improve the constitution, wouldn't it follow that they should follow the prescribed method instead of trying to do an end run around a constitutional convention by making clearly unconstitutional laws?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If people want to improve the constitution, wouldn't it follow that they should follow the prescribed method instead of trying to do an end run around a constitutional convention by making clearly unconstitutional laws?
Depends. Law is a complicated topic, and open to interpretation, which is why people like to discuss things rather close out any alternative point of view.